3 ms·

It’s easy to sit here and say what their goals “should” be, but it doesn’t change the fact that they never claimed it’s an AGI.

throwawaygh 6y ago
Gary Marcus doesn't claim that they claim that it's an AGI, so I really have no god damn clue what y'all are going on about here. Clearly, the point I'm making in the top comment is the following: OpenAI apparently restricts access to people -- even very highly respective scientists -- who happen to be critical of their previous work. It's impossible to prove intent, but limiting access for people like Gary Marcus is while giving access to tech journalists likely to write breathless hype pieces is odd behavior that deserves to be criticized.
- hnuser123456 6y ago
  From a quick search on Gary, he's, in essence, spreading the word that GPT-3 isn't an AGI. Maybe this is useful to laymen to quench fears that it is one, but how should this garner a relationship with OpenAI? There are still people who have access who admit it's not, including OpenAI themselves already. I do wish the model was truly published openly, but despite it not being an AGI, it's already powerful enough to be potentially used for nefarious purposes. I do think there's an argument to be made that we should try to keep it in a good light to further interest in the field. How many more articles do we need like the one linked by OP?
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > I do think there's an argument to be made that we should try to keep it in a good light to further interest in the field. How many more articles do we need like the one linked by OP? This is how winter happens and is a decidedly anti-scientific mindset. Do you consult with non-technical/low-technical execs on AI investments? If you did, the answer to your question would be obvious. For every dollar Microsoft and VC firms can spend on "we're the best technical minds in the world" Research&Marketing departments, there are thousands dollars in the rest of the economy that can only be captured by ensuring execs make prudent AI investments. Step zero is always deconstructing the hype around GPT/Alpha*/etc.
    - hnuser123456 6y ago
      Is a winter not a widespread lack of interest in the field? I would stay step 0 is getting people interested by showing what's possible, and step 1 is showing what's not currently possible but should be.
      - mcguire 6y ago
        A widespread lack of interest caused by a failure of a previous technology in the field to live up to it's hyped claims.
- visarga 6y ago
  > Gary Marcus doesn't claim that they claim that it's an AGI, so I really have no god damn clue what y'all are going on about here. Well, who is Gary Marcus anyway? I looked up his publications in the last 2 years on Google Scholar and I see no hard contributions, all he has are some publications about futurology and AI critique. His wiki page says he's a cognitive scientist who once sold an ML company to Uber, but not an AI expert. Why didn't Gary invent a better language model to show us how it's done? If he knows better than the guys at OpenAI, let him show the path ahead. When someone has superior results it's not constructive to throw bullshit at their accomplishments.
Rioghasarig 6y ago
Yes, it's easy for anyone with a modicum of knowledge about scientific integrity. Wonder why OpenAI doesn't seem to get it.

throwawaygh 6y ago

Gary Marcus doesn't claim that they claim that it's an AGI, so I really have no god damn clue what y'all are going on about here. Clearly, the point I'm making in the top comment is the following: OpenAI apparently restricts access to people -- even very highly respective scientists -- who happen to be critical of their previous work. It's impossible to prove intent, but limiting access for people like Gary Marcus is while giving access to tech journalists likely to write breathless hype pieces is odd behavior that deserves to be criticized.

hnuser123456 6y ago
From a quick search on Gary, he's, in essence, spreading the word that GPT-3 isn't an AGI. Maybe this is useful to laymen to quench fears that it is one, but how should this garner a relationship with OpenAI? There are still people who have access who admit it's not, including OpenAI themselves already. I do wish the model was truly published openly, but despite it not being an AGI, it's already powerful enough to be potentially used for nefarious purposes. I do think there's an argument to be made that we should try to keep it in a good light to further interest in the field. How many more articles do we need like the one linked by OP?
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > I do think there's an argument to be made that we should try to keep it in a good light to further interest in the field. How many more articles do we need like the one linked by OP? This is how winter happens and is a decidedly anti-scientific mindset. Do you consult with non-technical/low-technical execs on AI investments? If you did, the answer to your question would be obvious. For every dollar Microsoft and VC firms can spend on "we're the best technical minds in the world" Research&Marketing departments, there are thousands dollars in the rest of the economy that can only be captured by ensuring execs make prudent AI investments. Step zero is always deconstructing the hype around GPT/Alpha*/etc.
  - hnuser123456 6y ago
    Is a winter not a widespread lack of interest in the field? I would stay step 0 is getting people interested by showing what's possible, and step 1 is showing what's not currently possible but should be.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      A widespread lack of interest caused by a failure of a previous technology in the field to live up to it's hyped claims.
visarga 6y ago
> Gary Marcus doesn't claim that they claim that it's an AGI, so I really have no god damn clue what y'all are going on about here. Well, who is Gary Marcus anyway? I looked up his publications in the last 2 years on Google Scholar and I see no hard contributions, all he has are some publications about futurology and AI critique. His wiki page says he's a cognitive scientist who once sold an ML company to Uber, but not an AI expert. Why didn't Gary invent a better language model to show us how it's done? If he knows better than the guys at OpenAI, let him show the path ahead. When someone has superior results it's not constructive to throw bullshit at their accomplishments.

Rioghasarig 6y ago

Yes, it's easy for anyone with a modicum of knowledge about scientific integrity. Wonder why OpenAI doesn't seem to get it.